| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Is it any wonder people think photographers fake it?
Mike Brice, Photographer
 |
Northwood | OH | USA | Posted: 12:58 AM on 04.26.05 |
->> Without sounding accusatory, I would suspect that there are many photos over the years that have not been captured but have been set up or directed by the photographer to achieve the intended result.
We have all seen it to varying degrees. The key question is what is too much. I am not talking about environmental portraits, but photos that appear to be made on the spur of the moment but have had a substantial influence by the photographer unknown to the reader.
In the above story, bringing the couple back the next day to take the shot seems like its over the line.
But there are other smaller things that some photographers consider OK.
Such as
Asking the old man in the rocking chair to go ahead and light his pipe because you don't want to wait around until he gets around to it.
Suggesting to parents who have children watching a parade that their kids would look neat if they were wearing or were not wearing something such as a hat, etc...
Asking a face painter to continue applying a few more strokes while you get a different angle.
These are all made up things, but I think you get the idea. Many PJs talk about never setting up a shot, but we here about it and read about it.
I think it is like the drug commercials that said something along the lines, If its not your kids then whose kids are using the drugs. I think we have to admit that there are people in the PJ ranks that are under a lot of pressure to capture a great shot day in and day out, and sometimes the subject matter is challenging and it creates the pressure to set-up, suggest or direct. |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer
 |
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 7:19 AM on 04.26.05 |
->> There is no "yes or no", "black or white". It's all just a muddled confusion of gray tones.
For all those examples Mike just posted up above, are they really "over the line", and if so, whose line?
Is asking the old fellow to light up his pipe now, rather than waiting, any "worse" than setting up several lights around the fellow to better "light" him for the photograph?
NONE of us can record reality without changing it. It can't be done. The fact that you're recording something has an effect on what it is that's being recorded. There isn't any separate "reality" that you're trying to cover. If NOBODY were covering it, and there were no spectators, no photographers, no reporters, nothing but the participants, the actions might be entirelly different. The fact that the spectators, or reporters, or photographers, or whatever there, all by itself has an impact on what happens and how.
The "line", if there really is such a thing, is how far you can go, before you've gone too far. ...and if you do think you've gone "too far over the line", all you need to do is explain it in the caption, which should be right there with the photo, not buried away. |
|
Michael P. King, Photographer, Student/Intern
 |
Evansville | IN | USA | Posted: 9:19 AM on 04.26.05 |
->> We're talking about photojournalistic reporting here, right?
Here in Evansville (and I would presume other newspapers), our mission statement for the whole company includes qualities like accuracy and accountability in all our endeavors... especially in the newsroom. To me it seems obvious that it takes far less effort to simply be an observer and document what *is*, than to fabricate what you think *should be*.
Our job is to always seek truth. I really don't see what's so hard to understand about that. You go out... you look for the visually interesting picture that tells the story (*truthfully*)... you shoot the picture... you get the name and info for the cutline... you go look for another one that might be better than the first.
Great photojournalists in their documentary capacities have been following that method for decades. And *they* are truly great. They compliment the profession as they find the moments themselves and capture it when it happened and in its true context. That's part of why I feel we're blessed... we become witnesses to people's most trying, painful, and joyful moments. I generally have little respect for those who deem it necessary to recreate the moments because they missed it, or who alter reality to fit their preconception of the perfect image.
Journalists can't overcome the change in reality that occurs when we document a 3D world on a 2D medium... it's just inherent of our practices. But we surely can avoid alterring the reality in which we live and experience.
--MK |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
Northwood | OH | USA | Posted: 9:21 AM on 04.26.05 |
->> Michael, Great comments. It gives us all something to think about.
Any other thoughts on the issue. |
|
Douglas Tesner, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Traverse City | MI | USA | Posted: 10:22 AM on 04.26.05 |
| ->> Interesting that this string should have been started. As I view different newspapers, contests, and web sites, I see more and more photographs that appear (to me) to be setups. I do not see it so much in news or spot news but I see it a lot in feature (stand-alone) type photography. So I have been asking myself were the line is? When does it shift from capturing to setup, and how much interaction one can have with the subject before it would be considered a setup? |
|
Brian Blanco, Photographer
 |
Bradenton | FL | USA | Posted: 10:30 AM on 04.26.05 |
->> Michael Myers asked, "For all those examples Mike (Price) just posted up above, are they really "over the line", and if so, whose line?
YES!! All of the examples that Mr. Price mentioned ARE, in my opinion, WAY over then line. The ONLY thing you should ever ask a subject to do is try to ignore you; to forget that you're there. I usually try to avoid even asking them that--preferring to allow my actions (turning away or lowering the camera if they start "performing" for me) to get the message across that I'm ONLY here to shoot candid moments.
In fact if I ever see somebody setting-up, altering or coaching a scene I'll drop my camera and immediately turn and walk away so that there is ABSOLUTLY no question that I'm not part of it and I'm not shooting it. I'm very fortunate in that the photographers at my paper and my competition’s paper are ALL professionals with unquestionable character, but I've seen (not trying to start a war) TV people set-up stuff a lot.
Just this Saturday I was shooting an NFL Draft party for a guy who went in the first round and me and a shooter for the competition were there for the candid reaction when he got drafted. Twenty minutes later (now everybody is outside in the front yard) a TV guy showed up and asked the player to pretend he was talking on the phone (in the driveway) and asked his family to recreate the moment the call came in by jumping up and down and cheering and hugging. Immediately me and the other photographer, without saying a word to each other, turned and walked away rolling our eyes. |
|
Jeff Blake, Photographer
 |
Athens | GA | USA | Posted: 11:31 AM on 04.26.05 |
->> Here's the thing, folks, people are trusting the media less and less every day. When you suggest to a person he/she do something that they are not, put on a hat, light a pipe, paint a little longer, "do it again," anything other than just document what is going on without interfering, you are further eroding the public's trust in us.
Everyone at the NFL draft party in Brian's example, thanks to one unethical TV photographer, now assumes that most everything they see on TV or in the paper is likely set up and doesn't represent the truth, therefore our photos aren't accurate representations of the truth in their minds.
Do you think the parents of the kid at the parade who you put a hat to improve the picture have a greater respect for journalism? No, most likely they have a decreased respect for journalism, even if they're happy their kid makes the paper. They'll tell everyone they know, "hey did you see johnny's picture in the paper? No, that's not his hat, the photographer thought it'd make a better picture." They and everyone they tell will now trust the paper biz that much less. And if the pictures aren't complete reflections of the truth, why should folks trust the stories? If folks think we alter pictures, then what's to keep them from thinking writers aren't padding quotes, changing background, etc to make the stories more interesting?
There is definitley a black line, very little grey. Do we alter reality by our very presence? Of course. But the good photo-j learns how to blend into the background and allow people to do what they do. If a subject subconciously changes his behavior because we are present, that is their decision, not ours-the subject knows that we don't alter the news, we document it, and that is all the difference in the world.
The public perception that we are ethical is almost as important as being ethical, in keeping the public's trust. |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
Northwood | OH | USA | Posted: 12:50 PM on 04.26.05 |
->> Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that the actions by a photographer in my examples were OK. I think they are all over the line, and wanted to use them as discussion points.
Of course, I think there is a different latitude with environmental portraits as opposed to news and and feature photos from the fair.
With an environmental portrait the CEO just doesn't sit on the window sill during the normal course of the day.
Asking the player to recreate the cell phone call is horrible but an example of what happens and why people think we want them to pose or take instruction from them. |
|
Brady Lane, Photographer
 |
Marshfield | WI | USA | Posted: 12:51 PM on 04.26.05 |
->> I'm two months into my first job at a daily and there are two things that have shocked me... 1) people's lack of trust in the media, and 2) how many people want me to pose photos.
Rarely does a day go by that I don't have to educate my subjects what I am there to do and what I am not there to do. I often feel more like a counselor or an educator about journalism than a photojournalist.
While it's tiring and frustrating, it's worth the fight. I'll keep fighting for the trust of my community by providing truth in my images. |
|
Geoff Miller, Photographer
 |
Portage | MI | USA | Posted: 1:26 PM on 04.26.05 |
->> Not quite "faking it", but here's another photographer and writer that had too much of an active hand in their recent story:
"The Kalamazoo Gazette published a series of stories last Sunday focusing on the problem of heavy drinking by young adults on and off campus. In that report was a story about a drinking game called 'beer pong.' As a part of the reporting for the series, staff writer Craig McCool and photographer Mairin Chapman arranged to go to an off-campus apartment where the game was being played. McCool and Chapman said they consumed alcohol while reporting and photographing the story. They did not divulge this information to their editors prior to the story's publication."
More info: http://www.mlive.com/news/kzgazette/index.ssf?/base/news-13/111427500923836... |
|
Andrew Kornylak, Photographer
 |
Decatur | GA | USA | Posted: 1:46 PM on 04.26.05 |
| ->> Oh I dont know, about the beer pong story... Seems like they were making an effort to be a participant, which, in some sports or travel photography, is essential, and maybe in the realm of photo-j, with a nod to the late Hunter S Thompson, call it gonzo photography. |
|
Jeffrey Haderthauer, Photographer
 |
Wichita Falls | TX | USA | Posted: 2:08 PM on 04.26.05 |
| ->> What surprises me is that that people might think that the images they see on TV are real- If only I had a dollar for every time I heard a camera pointer ask a subject to 'do that again', 'move over that way', or 'do it more like this' |
|
Jonathan Castner, Photographer
 |
Broomfield | CO | USA | Posted: 2:22 PM on 04.26.05 |
| ->> I think that we make or break our industry's image with every assignment that we, as individuals, do. Every time we cut corners on our work’s ethics we erode our integrity. That integrity, as perceived by the public, is our legacy that we have to live up to or overcome. I refuse to change the actions of my subject by anymore than my physical presence. I will not ask a subject to do anything that they do not “normally” do. I am very hard core on this but that is the only way to keep my photos honest. A portrait is different and we know that but when it comes to covering any news event I have to treat is as news and not as a Broadway production. |
|
Mike Pittman, Photographer
|
Cary | NC | USA | Posted: 4:04 PM on 04.26.05 |
->> In my mind, I see no gray area here. Either your influence is explicit or implied. By simply being in front of the kid at the parade, there's a chance I'm going to have an implied effect on him or his parents. He'll watch me, or show off, or do something he'd not normally do. Explicitly changing the scene by asking him to don a hat, look away from me, look at me, or whatever still changes the scene. A photographer shooting for an editiorial outlet should never explicitely change a scene. Even changing implicitly can be avoided. If this happens to me, I drop the camera until they forget I'm there, or walk off. One problem arises when the parents ask to shoot the photo of their kid doing such-n-such. If you agree, but never run it, you've maintained your personal integrity. However, by taking the photo you run the risk that the word will get out you still took a photo of a posed situation. What do you do about this?
As for those who shoot non-PJ work, most agree it's okay to change a photo. Once that photo gets sold for commercial purposes, there's no way to know if it has or hasn't been changed. I'm sure most people who saw "The Kiss" never pondered this question. Most probably don't care. When you buy a poster, there's nothing on there that says "Photo Illustration" so what indicates to anyone it's staged or not?
I always make it a point to show people when I see a staged or manipulated photo so they'll know it's been staged. Most people look at me as a photo geek, but I really don't care. I shoot weddings a few times a year, and almost each client I've had has asked me in regards one photo in particular: "I thought you didn't setup 'candid' shots, what about this one?" I deal with that question each time, and try to kindly explain why I don't change the event.
I think all this babble boils down to a few simple things. First, you have to know your limits of ethics. My limit is asking someone to do something, or shooting someone doing something, that I *KNOW* they're only doing because I'm there. If I think I'm changing the photo in any way by being there, I don't shoot it. Second, you have to educate those around you about ethics, both photographers and general public. I personally HATE seeing a photo in a magazine that's been reversed. That has changed the photo, and anyone I see looking at it, I point it out. Finally, you have to have a plan of action. If someone asks you to take a posed photo, how do you deal with that? If someone starts showing off, how do you deal with that?
That's my thought. There's no gray area. Either you influence the moment, or you don't. Influence is bad. |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
Northwood | OH | USA | Posted: 5:29 PM on 04.26.05 |
->> I think there are different levels of acceptance for different types of photography as far as how much influence the photographer can have on the scene without having too much influence.
I think you have to determine what type of photography the assignment falls into, and then work within the guidelines that you have established for that type - PJ, portrait, commercial, etc...
I would think it would be harder for photographers who shoot different types of photography. Say commercial and PJ. While it is ok to adjust the everything to get a great interior shot for your client who is the construction company and needs something for a sales brochure, it would not be ok if you were working for a newspaper and doing an article on real estate trends.
What may make it even more challenging is that people might have a photography experience during the week at work where the commercial photographer directed the shooting, but don't understand how come the newspaper shooter from the paper doesn't want to pose them for the fair or parade feature. |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
 |
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 1:11 PM on 04.27.05 |
->> Hi Mike, I think your third paragraph above accurately describes the work environment found at many newspapers. I think you know many PJs do not work purely as documentarists focused mostly on news stories. As mentioned, there are the environmental portraits, etc. but there is also the every growing trend of making newspapers look more like magazines with more and more product and "commercial" type photography. Much of that commercial photography may be intended to look editorial, further testing the boundaries of photojournalism. It may even be that this "commercial" photography is more prevalent in a given photographer's daily assignment list. Combine this with more assignments per day that diminsh the amount of time available to "look for something better if the first candid attempt didn't work" and a working environment where guidelines from management may further blur the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable - it will really test each photographer's personal perception on where the limits are, how far they can be stretched and whether or not they should/would/could cross them.
It's probably not realistic to blame solely the photographers. Yes, they are ultimately responsible for deciding whether or not to cross that perceived line (which sits at a different point for each person), but they are also a product of the environment in which they work. The same can be said of TV videographers - they are ultimately producing footage based on what their employers expect.
My point is not to justify what is happening - rather to point out that this may be the reality perceived by many in the news industry. What's that saying.....? "Perception is reality." |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer
|
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 3:49 AM on 04.28.05 |
->> Either some of you are living in a "dream world", or I am.
I'll make this short. I cover radio control car races. At the end of the race, the winner(s) expect to get a photograph made of them with their car, radio, and maybe some other things in it. They EXPECT me to tell them where to stand or sit, and which way to face.
I put them in front of an interesting background, making sure if any banners appear behind them, it is THEIR banner and not the competition's. I try to arrange the photo to look reasonably good.
Regardless of whether anyone here thinks I'm doing "right" or "wrong", this photo is part of the job, as is a "group" photo of the various teams involved. The people at the magazine expect to receive this image, and the winner of the event expects to have it taken.
Is it posed? Heck yes. It's very much posed. It is also part of what is required in the race coverage.
In my opinion, the fact that you are there with a camera already influences what people do. They're not going to do anything un-photogenic, they're not going to scratch themselves in a place where they wouldn't want to be shot on film, and they'll probably put on a "better" shirt with their sponsor's name, the one they're really supposed to be wearing the whole time anyway.
Yeah, I could spend several hours, and get a candid photo of the guy that maybe is a "better" photo, but that isn't what the magazine wants... although they would ALSO like this kind of photo.
........one last comment... putting the camera down when people "notice" you, then picking it up later never works for me. As soon as I pick it up again, it's the same problem. My own answer to this is to just keep on shooting, knowing that after a few minutes people will get bored of me, and forget about me. With digital film, it's no big deal to take all those images, and zap them later.
I suppose it all comes down to who the photograph is being taken for. If it's for the next day's newspaper, a candid shot is obviously much nicer than a posed image, but that might not be what any of the people involved are after. |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer
|
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 3:51 AM on 04.28.05 |
->> Oh yeah.... for the images I just mentioned, the magazines I work for expect the subject to be looking right into the camera lens, and NOT off to the right or left, presumably into someone else's camera lens.
Yep, it's a posed photo. Anyone looking at it knows it's a posed photo. There's no deception involved. |
|
Mike Morones, Photographer
|
Fredericksburg | VA | USA | Posted: 7:22 AM on 04.28.05 |
| ->> When I am confronted with a person who doesn't understand what I am trying to do, I just explain it and when it works, it works - if not, well the editors get a portrait. with longer term projects, I'll usually sit down with the person or people I'm photographing and explain what i want to do, why i want to just hang around and 'take a few pictures.' people usually get it and appreciate that I want them to be themselves. |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
Northwood | OH | USA | Posted: 8:08 AM on 04.28.05 |
->> Michael Myers (so as not to confuse with all the other Mikes),
I don't think there is anything wrong with a posed or grip and grin shot when it is what it is. You see that with a lot of items, like NASCAR where you have the trophy photos with the different sponsors.
I think we are talking (at least I am) about sport news and candid features where the audience believes the shot was made/captured without direction from the photographer.
In your case, like you said, the type of photo makes it obvious so there is no deception. In the example that started the thread, there was deception on how it was created when for years people thought it was a canid capture. |
|
Josh Thompson, Photographer
|
Ontario | California | USA | Posted: 8:00 PM on 04.28.05 |
->> Anyone remember this shot that was named the "National Geographic 2002 Photo of the Year" and was later learned to be a hoax. It is the great white shark attacking a helicopter.
After clicking on the link, scroll down to the very bottom.
http://home.earthlink.net/~hhs57/awesome%20photos.htm |
|
|| Sponsor Special Deals
Nikon D3 (refurbished demo!)
|
Available from:
Samy's Camera
|
Price: $3799.00 |
Notes:
We have 15 refurbished demo Nikon D3 cameras available. First come, first served! Comes with a 3 month manufacturer warranty, and extended warranties are available. Send an email to samys@sportsshooter.com, or call 866-726-9463 and identify yourself as a person from SportsShooter.
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|
